United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendants
Chalmers Automotive, LLC, Albert J. Chalmers, Michael Ferris,
and David Green (collectively, as “defendants”).
(ECF No. 8). Plaintiffs Penn Elleston and Sandi Elleston
(collectively, as “plaintiffs”) filed a response
(ECF No. 10),  to which defendants replied (ECF No. 13).
instant action involves a contract for the purchase and
delivery of a Mercedes-Benz Luxury Sprinter Van, VIN number
WD3FE8CC5FP125554 (the “van”), to Nevada.
Chalmers Automotive, LLC (“Chalmers Automotive”)
delivers vehicles to purchasers in different states and
advertises its services on its website. (ECF No. 1). Ferris
is Chalmers Automotive's national sales manager. (ECF No.
allege that they paid defendants $97, 500.00 to modify and
deliver the van into Nevada. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs further
allege that defendants made false representations to
plaintiffs regarding the van, to which defendants did not
have title. (ECF No. 1).
April 21, 2017, plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint,
alleging eight causes of action: (1) fraud against all
defendants; (2) consumer fraud against all defendants; (3)
conversion against Ferris, Chalmers, and Chalmers Automotive;
(4) breach of contract against Chalmers Automotive; (5)
unjust enrichment against Chalmers Automotive; (6)
detrimental reliance against Chalmers Automotive; (7)
piercing the corporate veil against Chalmers Automotive; and
(8) civil conspiracy against Chalmers, Green, and Ferris.
(ECF No. 1).
instant motion, defendants move to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2). (ECF No. 8).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to move
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. To avoid
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2), a plaintiff bears the burden
of demonstrating that its allegations would establish a prima
facie case for personal jurisdiction. See Boschetto v.
Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008).
Allegations in plaintiff's complaint must be taken as
true and factual disputes should be construed in the
plaintiff's favor. Rio Props, Inc. v. Rio Int'l
Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002).
federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, the district
court applies the law of the forum state. Boschetto,
539 F.3d at 1015; see also Panavision Int'l L.P. v.
Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). Where a
state has a “long-arm” statute providing its
courts jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the
due process clause, as Nevada does, a court need only address
federal due process standards. See Arbella Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 P.3d 710, 712 (Nev.
2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065); see also
Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015.
assertion of personal jurisdiction must comport with due
process. See Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods
Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2012). To satisfy due
process, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
defendant only where the defendant has certain minimum
contacts with the forum state “such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l
Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
categories of personal jurisdiction exist: (1) general
jurisdiction; and (2) specific jurisdiction. See
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466
U.S. 408, 413-15 (1984); see also LSI Indus., Inc. v.
Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
jurisdiction arises where the defendant has continuous and
systematic ties with the forum, even if those ties are
unrelated to the litigation. See Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing
Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A., 466 U.S.
at 414-16). “[T]he plaintiff must demonstrate the
defendant has sufficient contacts to constitute the kind of
continuous and systematic general business contacts that
approximate physical presence.” In re W. States
Wholesale Nat'l Gas Litig., 605 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1131
(D. Nev. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations
example, a state court has general jurisdiction over the
state's own residents. The United States Supreme Court
recently clarified, however, that general jurisdiction exists
only where the defendant is at “home” in the
forum state. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, ___ U.S. ___,
___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760-62 (2014).
purposeful availment prong of the minimum contacts test
requires a qualitative evaluation of the defendant's
contact with the forum state, in order to determine whether
[the defendant's] conduct and connection with the forum
State are such that [the defendant] should reasonably
anticipate being haled into court there.” Harris
Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & ...